Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)

State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 1 March, 1994

14. The case of the prosecution is that the police party did not have any prior information about the accused carrying charas. It was the unusual behavior that made the patrolling police suspicious of the said person carrying some contraband. Resultantly, the police captured him, and on his search detected the charas. Thus the present case is based on chance recovery. However, the NDPS Act does not define chance recovery. Therefore, the procedure and safeguards in cases of chance recovery, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its landmark holding, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 299, shall follow.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 1785 - S R Pandian - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005

15. Since the police did not seize the charas from the person of the accused, as such, they were under no obligation to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 50 of the NDPS Act. Thus section 50 of the NDPS Act shall not apply and the law is no more res integra. A three- member bench of the Supreme Court, in State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350, holds:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 489 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1